Zionist shabbos goy Putin fires missiles at Israeli jets in Syria

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from (self.debatealtright)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's just a bunch of nonsense. I disapprove of this whole philosophical approach to statesmanship and politics altogether. You form states or systems in consideration of what's practical. Are these borders practical economically, demographically, and militarily? Will this system of government/societal organization help me achieve my aim?

That's an implicitly philosophical approach, though. In order to know what system suits your aims, you first need to articulate what those aims are. It's about means and ends. Philosophy, or perhaps, a specific category of philosophy, deals with the ends and provides the principles. The implementation is what is left up to practice.

In the Soviet Union, the party's desire to stay true to the teachings of Marx and the spirit of communism prevented it from ever undertaking the necessary reforms and making the USSR an economically viable empire. It ultimately collapsed due to this.

I must disagree with you here. Beginning with Khruschev and "de-Stalinisation" there was a drift towards revisionism and that is what ultimately destroyed the Soviet Union. Faithfulness to the traditional interpretation of Marxism-Leninism would have most certainly preserved the state. Gorbachev was a liberal reformer, and obviously liberal reforms do not mix well with a communist system. China provides a counter-example to this, since in China communist elites successfully initiated various economic reforms and still retained power. If those reforms helped or hindered the cause of Marxism in China remains to be seen.

As to France, I think you are mostly right, but it's worth noting that French liberals genuinely didn't care about an illiberal France, and that their intransigence ultimately meant that they got their way.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's an implicitly philosophical approach, though. In order to know what system suits your aims, you first need to articulate what those aims are. It's about means and ends. Philosophy, or perhaps, a specific category of philosophy, deals with the ends and provides the principles. The implementation is what is left up to practice.

Fair point. I'll concede that what your objective is shaped by thought and philosophy.

I personally have somewhat of a crude and grug view of this. In my mind, the government's job is to ensure that dharma or the right order of the world is maintained in the state. This right order of the world is essentially making a moral society and ensuring outcomes that are in line with morality.

How do you derive morality you say? Imo, true and objective morality can only derive from two sources:

A. Biological adaptiveness: That which is good for the survival and flourishing of the group and the individual is good and moral. Things like patriarchy, nationalism, strong families, moralizing art and culture, eugenics, martial values and a culture of masculinity. That which is maladaptive for the group is immoral/evil. Feminism, cosmopolitanism, post-modern art, sexual degeneracy, dysgenics, pacifism and hedonism for example.

B. Natural law: There are certain patterns that repeat in history. Societies that abandon values like patriarchy, asabiya, nationalism, religiosity, worship of ancestors, martial values, eugenics, modesty and martial values decline and collapse. Those that abide by them flourish. You gauge from this that it is God's will that these values be adhered to. This is how the universe is designed and you must abide by these principles. It is the right order of things.

Both these viewpoints are essentially the same thing and are different routes to the same destination. If you are of a scientific persuasion and you prefer reason and solid evidence, you can take the Darwinian approach. If you don't like such materialism and prefer a more spiritual outlook on the world, take the natural rights approach.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In my mind, the government's job is to ensure that dharma or the right order of the world is maintained in the state. This right order of the world is essentially making a moral society and ensuring outcomes that are in line with morality.

This is a beautiful way to express it, but in the original context of your terminology there is an entire Brahmin caste dedicated to unpicking what this dharma is. For the other castes, such spiritual and/or philosophical considerations aren't really relevant, but that's because the Brahmins take care of this important duty.

I can't accept your ideas about morality, but I will discuss that in the other thread.